Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But it also points to the notion that the telecoms are genuinely concerned that what they've been doing is unlawful in the absence of an immunity clause.> Or they're concerned they'll have to fight off a bunch of unjustified civil suits.
Originally Posted By dshyates We'll start with this newsweek article called "Unintended Consequences: Spitzer Got Snagged by the Fine Print of the Patriot Act". <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/123489" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/123 489</a> I'll get back to you on the Patriot Act being for fighting terrorists.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We'll start with this newsweek article called "Unintended Consequences: Spitzer Got Snagged by the Fine Print of the Patriot Act".> I read it already. It's a bunch of supposition.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 A convenient way to dismiss it without discussing the article. But aside from that, it certainly did answer the question "who besides you (dshyates) is saying..."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A convenient way to dismiss it without discussing the article.> Convenient, and truthful. <it certainly did answer the question "who besides you (dshyates) is saying..."> Yes, it did. And the answer is, no one who really knows.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<A convenient way to dismiss it without discussing the article.>> <Convenient, and truthful.> In your opinion. Perhaps you'd like to get specific and show us what in the article falls short or is not factual, rather than just dismissing it outright? I won't hold my breath. <<it certainly did answer the question "who besides you (dshyates) is saying...">> <Yes, it did. And the answer is, no one who really knows.> So we're to believe that somehow YOU in your infinite wisdom know better than the Newsweek authors or their sources? I don't think so. "Terrorism has virtually nothing to do with it," says Peter Djinis, a former top Treasury lawyer. "The vast majority of SARs filed today involve garden-variety forms of white-collar crime."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Perhaps you'd like to get specific and show us what in the article falls short or is not factual, rather than just dismissing it outright?> There's not a single quote from anyone involved in the Spitzer investigation that says they used the Patriot Act. The quote you presented certainly doesn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They might not have said they used the Patriot act, however... <The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million last year. The data, stored in an IRS computer in Detroit, are accessible by law-enforcement agencies nationwide. "Terrorism has virtually nothing to do with it," says Peter Djinis, a former top Treasury lawyer. "The vast majority of SARs filed today involve garden-variety forms of white-collar crime." Federal prosecutors around the country routinely scour the SARs for potential leads. One of those leads led to Spitzer. Last summer New York's North Fork Bank, where Spitzer had an account, filed a SAR about unusual money transfers he had made, say law-enforcement and industry sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the probe.> So at the very least the vastly increased use of SARs since the Patriot Act went into effect made it about 6 times more likely that this non-terrorist would be fingered. (And by the way, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, at least in this instance. But it's a good example of the government using powers granted it for one purpose for other purposes. The same kind of "mission creep" we saw in an earlier period where intelligence services supposed to be wiretapping communists wiretapped MLK and anti-war religious groups. As a conservative, one would think you might be wary of such overreaching and misuse of governmental powers.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As a conservative, one would think you might be wary of such overreaching and misuse of governmental powers.> I'm not seeing any misuse. I'm seeing a criminal getting caught.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Certainly not a terrorist, though. The point was the "mission creep" and the abuse that can lead to.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The point was the "mission creep" and the abuse that can lead to.> Yes, we should dismantle all government, because it leads to abuse.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Did I say we should dismantle all government? OH MY GOD!!!! I'M BEING MISREPRESENTED!!!! <whine, whine, sob, sob>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course I do. Just as wiretapping of communists creeped into wiretapping MLK and anti-war ministers, spying on terrorists can easily creep into spying on johns and others. Particularly if they insist on bypassing oversight mechanisms like warrants. I asked this long ago when we were debating it, but if warrants aren't required, what's to stop a President Hillary Clinton from spying, say, on pro-life groups? She could even do it in the guise of looking for "terrorists," since there are abortion clinic bombings. Meanwhile she's spying on tons of people who just don't like abortion. This mission creep happened before, and there's no reason to think it won't happen again. Catching Spitzer with a law designed for terrorists is an early indicator.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I asked this long ago when we were debating it, but if warrants aren't required, what's to stop a President Hillary Clinton from spying, say, on pro-life groups?> The fact that she can't do it alone.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And the fact that warrants are required, if the wiretaps are being done on domestic targets.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Don't anti-abortion activists contact non-Americans sometimes? Bingo, you're in. And if Clinton herself isn't doing it, why couldn't her agencies at her directive?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Don't anti-abortion activists contact non-Americans sometimes? Bingo, you're in.> I wouldn't know, but would still be targeting Americans, and require a warrant. <And if Clinton herself isn't doing it, why couldn't her agencies at her directive?> Because it would get out, and be stopped.
